The landmark initiative, which reverses U.S. policy restricting nuclear cooperation since India tested a nuclear weapon in 1974, calls for New Delhi to join the nuclear nonproliferation treaty and place two-thirds of its existing and planned civil nuclear reactors under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in exchange for civil nuclear commerce with the United States.

Secretary Rice asserted the initiative, if passed, would represent a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, outlining its broad potential security, economic and political benefits to an audience of Indian-American interest groups in Washington, D.C.

A landmark nuclear cooperation deal with India will increase India's energy security by easing its reliance on hydrocarbons from "unstable" sources, such as Iran, and improve the environment by promoting clean nuclear energies, Rice said. She further noted that thousands of jobs could be expected for American entrepreneurs as India is the sixth-largest consumer of energy in the world.

But experts remain divided as to whether the agreement would be a net gain or loss for the fledgling international nonproliferation regime, and if economic and political benefits of the deal merit a shotgun passage.

Many fear nuclear commerce will only fuel proliferation in India and Pakistan, arguing that by providing nuclear energy to India alone, non-proliferation efforts would be assailed by charges of hypocrisy by other nuclear countries under pressure to curtail their programs.

"(The agreement) promotes a policy of nonproliferation exceptionalism," William Potter, director for the Center for Non Proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute said. "It essentially distinguishes between good proliferations and bad proliferations, and I don't think you can establish an international treaty system that has rules which apply to some and not to others.

"If today one were a Brazil, a South Africa, a Kazakhstan, a Ukraine, they have to ask themselves, did we do the right thing when we gave up our nuclear weapons?"

The Nuclear Suppliers Group, which consists of 30 nuclear suppliers and seeks to control exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology, would likely lose its effectiveness as a regulator of nuclear commerce, he added. The NSG has yet to take a stance on the draft agreement.

Stephen Cohen, a senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institute, believes the benefits to India's energy supply that Rice described are exaggerated.

"India is going to have an energy shortfall no matter what happens," Cohen said. "All this does is to allow them to have a smaller shortfall by allowing them to open more nuclear power plants."

Others are convinced the need to bring rapidly developing India into the nuclear fold far outweighs any concerns that the United States is sending mixed messages about nonproliferation.

"The thing that will encourage proliferation is if Iran becomes a nuclear power," S. Enders Wimbush, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the director of its Center for Future Security Strategies, said. "It's worth noting that the U.S., Europe and particularly the Indians do not want to see that happen. This is one of the reasons that (India) needs to be elevated to the status of a mature and nuclear power -- so that they can help oppose it."

Wimbush insists energy security is the most pressing issue the agreement addresses. As India and most of Asia depends on the Persian Gulf for energy supplies, any conflict in the Gulf region has the potential to create a competition for supply between major consumers such as India and China, he said.

"The potential for security challenging energy competition in the event that something happens in the Gulf doesn't take much imagination," Wimbush said. "This agreement will go a long way toward making that less likely. The energy security issue for Asia is what I would say is the biggest security issue for the long term."

Potential economic and security benefits notwithstanding, Potter believes the United States offered too many concessions to India during top-level negotiations in March because of its eagerness to develop a strategic relationship with the country.

Although Washington began with the intention of placing a greater proportion of India's existing nuclear facilities under safeguards, Potter said, it undermined this goal by agreeing that India does not have to cap its fissile nuclear production.

Potter said he suspects the United States may have been less insistent on restricting India's nuclear operations because it would like to establish India as a counterbalance to China's burgeoning military power.

"I think the real wild card is the stance that China will take (on the agreement)," Potter said. "While China has not objected per se, they have strong concerns, and may suggest that a similar deal be struck with Pakistan."

Despite Some U.S. compromises during negotiations, Cohen said, he does not believe that India will take advantage of them based on its past history of nonproliferation and the IAEA's current talks with India on separating its civil and nuclear programs.

The civilian nuclear cooperation agreement now awaits a full vote by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House International Relations Committee.

U.S. President George W. Bush Monday said he is "optimistic" the deal will go through following a meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com
Civil Nuclear Energy Science, Technology and News
Powering The World in the 21st Century at Energy-Daily.com

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News